OFFICE
OF THE CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER

GSA
ACQUISITION WORKFORCE FORUM

Edition FourSummer 2004

In his new role as GSA’s Chief Acquisition Officer
(CAO), Chief of Staff Karl Reichelt was interviewed in the June 28 edition of
the Federal Times.When asked what
was the toughest issue at the moment, Reichelt said, “The work we are doing in
terms of integrity and ethics in acquisition is overwhelmingly important.”He also added, “We believe we will set a
legacy of compliance, ethics and integrity here at GSA for doing the right
thing.”

This
edition is packed with interesting and informative articles so be sure to make
it part of your “summer reading.” Recent procurement scandals have brought the
issue of ethics and integrity to the forefront.Addressing the goal stated by our new
CAO, this edition’s SPE Corner on “Loyalty” and last edition’s on “Integrity”
tie in with an article on the history of procurement scandals by Richard J.
Bednar, “Been There, Done That.”In
these challenging times, education and professional development of the
acquisition workforce has never been more important. The recent Federal
Acquisition Conference & Expo (FACE) was a great training and networking
opportunity.We hope you were able
to attend.If you are interested in
professional development, the Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer is
offering paid memberships to NIGP.Increasing your expertise on the Internet is also important.The new “Usability University” is a
training program that offers a variety of user experience training
opportunities.Education also
occurs through exchanging ideas with procurement staff from other countries as
the recent meeting with the South Korean Procurement Delegation demonstrates.
Learn more about Quality Control in “Quality Standards Demystified,” our first
offering from FTS.And be sure to
keep up to date by checking out our usual columns on the FAR, GSAM, PBS
Acquisition News, Green Acquisition, JWOD, and “Check It
Out!”

We
welcome any comments, suggestions and articles for the newsletter.The “Forum” is here to meet the needs of
the GSA acquisition community and we can’t do that without your input! We
also welcome any individually authored articles on acquisition issues that would
be of interest to the GSA acquisition audience.Please contact the Editor, Judy Steele,
at judy.steele@gsa.gov or (202) 501-4994 with
comments or suggestions.

There was a time during the 1980s when government
contracting was widely publicized as being synonymous with corruption and
inefficiency.That publicity washed
over and stained both government contractors and Department of Defense (DoD)
procurement personnel. This was the Reagan era—the best of times and the worst
of times.President Reagan’s vision
was to build up our national defense capability to an unprecedented level; to
overwhelm the Soviet threat and to defeat it. This meant huge outlays for
defense, especially ships, aircraft, tanks, and other weapon systems.For defense contractors, these were good
times.

Almost concurrently, these were the worst of
times.Along with record
expenditures for defense procurement came reports of corruption and
inefficiencies, both inside and outside the Pentagon.From the outside came offers of
gratuities and bribes, offers of important industry jobs, payments for
procurement information, rigged bids, illicit exchange of classified documents,
and other manipulative devices to capture defense contracts.From the inside, there were enough
unscrupulous procurement executives to make it work.

It is fair to say that for some defense contractors a
perception existed that the

corporate culture was to pursue whatever tactic was
necessary to fatten the bottom line. It is also fair to say that some government
procurement officials became willing participants, looked the other way, or
lacked the courage to take on the corruption apparent to them.As a consequence, even before the law
enforcement apparatus went into full gear, the public and Congress lost
confidence in the defense industry and in those within government entrusted to
protect the public interests.

By the spring of 1985, half of the top 100 defense
contractors were under

criminal investigation. “Operation Ill Wind,” the
largest procurement fraud investigation in the history of our nation, headed by
Henry Hudson, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, involved
thousands of investigators, including the FBI and the DCIS, and assistant
prosecutors. Eventually, over ninety contractors and individuals were convicted
of felonies stemming from this scandal. 2

In the summer of 1985, President Reagan established
the President’s Blue

Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (the “Packard
Commission,” Executive Order 12526, July 15, 1985).In the course of its comprehensive work,
the Commission heard from many witnesses who demanded more government oversight,
more penal laws, and more regulation of the industry. The Commission, however,
recognized that excellence in defense management could not be mandated by more
laws and more regulations.Instead,
the Commission wisely concluded that Government should foster and encourage
contractor self-governance.

Excellence in defense management will not be achieved
through legions of government auditors, inspectors and investigators.It depends on the honest partnership of
thousands of responsible contractors and DoD, each equally committed to proper
control of its own operations.

Based on the Packard Commission’s recommendation
regarding proper internal

controls, and on the industry’s own perception that
confidence in the industry could be regained only by embracing and practicing
values-based compliance, a group of 18 senior defense contractor executives met,
pondered, and adopted six ethical principles 4 that became the Defense Industry Initiative on
Business Ethics and Conduct (DII) (www.dii.org). That leading industry group, which now
numbers about 50, and includes nine of the top ten defense contractors, has
faithfully implemented the principles over the past nearly 18 years.5 The DII Principles have endured because practice has
proven they do promote sound management practices, ensure ethical conduct in
compliance with procurement regulations and standards, and serve to maintain DoD
and public confidence in the industry.DII has demonstrated over the years that self-governance can work, such
that when an isolated act of business misconduct occurs within a DII company,
the integrity of the company itself (and the defense industry as a whole) is not
called into question.

Let’s Not Go Back

“There and That” was nearly 20 years ago.Now, again concurrently
with

increased government procurement, we read about
serious ethical and compliance

lapses in the industry and fears of a deterioration
in the proper, arms-length relationship between industry and its government
contracting partners. Confidence in government procurement officials, government
contractors, and in the defense contracting process has been shaken; some wonder
whether we have forgotten the lessons of the past.

However, there is reason to believe that conditions
today are improved, and that the recent headline scandals do not signal a return
to the wide-spread government procurement abuses of the 1980’s.Evidence of such improvements rest upon
the expectations, even the demands, of the public, the government and investors
ofresponsible corporate
self-governance and ethical business conduct. There are many manifestations of
this heightened expectation. The original DII principles have steeled the DII
signatories to a firm and consistent commitment to ethical business conduct,
which is regarded as more than “the right thing to do.” The DII companies view
this commitment as adding to the bottom line in terms of the resulting trust and
confidence by investors, customers and suppliers. There are distinct linkages
between the 1986 DII principles in the 1991 U.S. Sentencing Commission
Organizational Guidelines 6 which established elements of an effective compliance
program; in the expression of Contractor Standard of Conduct in the DFARS
7 ; in the FAR provisions relating to mitigating
factors for contractor debarment 8 , and even in the most recent Federal legislation
dealing with corporate governance – the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 9 . The Securities and Exchange Commission 10 regulations additionally recognize that corporate
codes of ethics should include standards to promote honest and ethical conduct.
In the same theme, the Deputy U.S. Attorney General’s January 31, 2003
memorandum 11
singles out the role of management as an
important factor in determining whether to prosecute a corporation:
“….management is responsible for a corporate culture in which criminal conduct
is either discouraged or tacitly encouraged.”

What all of this means is that more decision makers
in government and in

responsible government contractors have gotten the
message.There is
broad

agreement that ethics, both as conduct and culture,
matters; that self-governance works where regulation alone does not work.Regulation works only in conjunction
with a culture of commitment to integrity.

We are in a time when the current administration
seeks to provide greater

competition with the private sector to perform
functions inherently commercial in nature.We work in a time where our national security is threatened. To meet and
defeat this threat, the government and government contractors need to trust each
other. That trust can blossom and endure only if each side regards the other as
an ethical contracting partner.We
need to work together to nurture that regard and to make it justifiably
placed.

______________________________________________________

1 Mr. Bednar is a former Army Chief
Trial Attorney; he now practices law with Crowell & Moring LLP
in

Washington, D.C. He also coordinates
the Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and
Conduct

(“DII”) activities.The views expressed in this paper are
those of the author and do not necessarily

3 Among these new constraints: the
1986 DOD Voluntary Disclosure Program; the 1986 Amendments to the Civil False
Claims Act; Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act and the Anti-Kickback Act of
1986.

4 Have and adhere to written Codes of
Conduct; Train employees in those Codes; Encourage internal reporting of
violations of the Code, within an atmosphere free of fear of retribution;
Practice self-governance through the implementation of systems to monitor
compliance with Federal

procurement laws and the adoption of
procedures for voluntary disclosure of violations to the

appropriate authorities; Share with
other firms their best practices in implementing the principles,

and participate annually in “Best
Practices Forums”; and Be accountable to the public.

Question:We
issued a solicitation in which we notified offerors that the Government intends
to make award without discussions.After the receipt of offers, one of the offerors submitted a revised
proposal.Are we now prevented from
making award without discussions?

Answer:FAR
15.001 defines a proposal revision as “a change to a proposal made after the
solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a contracting
officer, as the result of negotiations (emphasis added).”Further, FAR 15.303(c)(2) states that
the contracting officer shall “control exchanges with offerors in accordance
with 15.306.”Finally, FAR
15.306(a)(2) states that, “ If award will be made without conducting
discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of
proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance
information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has
not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical
errors.”

A recent GAO decision is on point.The Government issued a solicitation
informing offerors that the Government intended to make award without
discussion.In correspondence
clearly marked as “Clarification Request, the Government asked the offerors a
series of questions.In response to
the request for clarification, an offeror submitted a revised proposal.The Government did not evaluate the
revised proposal.The offeror
protested.In denying the protest,
GAO noted that the offeror “could not and did not transform the agency’s
clarifications into discussion.”(ANTECH, Inc., B-293582, April 13, 2004.)You can find this decision at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaodecisions/search.html.

Consequently, you do not have to evaluate the
unsolicited revision and you can proceed to make award without
discussions.

If you have any questions about the FAR including
where the FAR covers a specific topic, please send them to the Editor to be
answered in the next edition of the newsletter.

The Winter 2004 edition of the Acquisition Workforce Forum
contained an article that focused on the need to make the GSA Acquisition Manual
(GSAM) “more applicable to the commercial marketplace while maintaining its
integrity and maintain it at a level where all agency acquisition personnel can
rely upon it with complete confidence.” We are beginning to realize that goal
through a series of actions that include reformatting the GSAM into both HTML
and PDF versions, making it user-friendly and revising the GSAM to reflect the
reforms, technology-driven changes, and competition requirements for
acquisitions that are promoting new ways of doing business in the Federal
government.These changes are
largely the result of comments and suggestions provided by GSA’s acquisition
workforce.

The following upcoming changes will serve to ensure
that GSA’s procurement actions are processed with the highest degree of
transparency and integrity:

·Requiring all members
of GSA’s acquisition workforce to register in ACMIS;

·Requiring Contracting
Officers’ Representatives (CORs) to register their education and training in the
Acquisition Career Management Information System (ACMIS);

·Modifying existing
policy on obtaining deviations to the FAR and the GSAM;

·Providing GSA
contracting officers and contractors, acting under a utility service contract,
with specific guidance regarding the resolution of disputes involving tariffs
and tariff related matters; and

·Modifying GSA’s
debarment and suspension procedures to give parties being considered for
debarment an additional period to informally respond to such
considerations.

Some revisions and improvements should be completed
within the next few months - other actions will take longer.Our challenge in updating the GSAM
is not based on speed, but ensuring that GSA’s acquisition processes, policies,
and procedures are effective, can be applied fairly, and ensure public trust. To
meet this challenge and succeed, acquisition workforce members intimately
involved in the award and management of contracts are the best source for
information and advice.You
are encouraged to continue to contact Ernest Woodson at (202) 501-3775 or e-mail
him at ernest.woodson@gsa.gov with
questions, concerns, or suggestions for improving the GSAM.Your questions/concerns are important
and are welcomed!

We hope you were able to attend one of the sessions
of this year’s Federal Acquisition Conference & Expo (FACE).The Virginia session, held at the Hyatt
Regency Crystal City June 2-3, 2004, started off with a Keynote Address by
Robert Burton, Associate Administrator, OFPP.He discussed the issues OFPP is focusing
on this year including human capital, competitive sourcing, small business
issues, and e-Gov. Over the next six years, 64% of the Federal acquisition
workforce will be eligible for retirement, so human capital issues were a
frequent topic at the conference.Getting sufficient training for new employees in a time of budget
constraints is also of concern.The
passage of SARA and elevation of the role the Federal Acquisition Institute
plays should address this.The
afternoon Plenary Session had an invigorating discussion of the “Future of
Acquisition” moderated by Corey Rindner, Procurement Executive from the State
Department.Senior Procurement
Executives discussed such questions as “Is full and open competition dead?,” and
“Is the FAR in—or FAR out?”The
second day was kicked off by a rousing speech from Congressman Tom Davis of
Virginia’s 11th District. Dee Lee, Director of Defense Procurement
and Acquisition Policy led an interactive lunchtime discussion.FACE was a great venue for networking,
hearing the latest on acquisition issues at breakout sessions and seeing the
latest vendor offerings.Over 700
attended the Virginia session and 170 attended the session the following week in
Dayton, Ohio.If you didn’t attend
this year, be sure to catch it next year!

These are challenging and exciting times for
acquisition and supply functions.Over the past few years, the public sector acquisition workforce has had
to adjust to challenges in staffing levels, workloads, and the need for new
skill sets. Reforms are requiring the acquisition workforce have a greater
knowledge of market conditions and industry trends and a new set of skills
focusing on business management and the use of independent judgment and
initiative.The key to success is
in professional education, access to precise technical information, and
networking with colleagues so our contracting workforce can upgrade its skills
and abilities continuously.

As part of its ongoing efforts to address skill gaps
and to foster the professionalism development of its acquisition workforce, the
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer has obtained an appropriate number of
agency memberships to the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing
(NIGP).These agency
memberships are available to program offices without additional cost on a first
come, first serve basis.NIGP
is a professional association of Federal, State, and Local Government Buyers
that provides its membership with education, research, technical assistance and
networking opportunities in public purchasing. For more information on NIGP,
check out their website at www.nigp.org.If you are interested in membership for
your program area, please contact Beverly Cromer at (202) 501-1448 or beverly.cromer@gsa.gov.The Office of the Chief Acquisition
Officer also purchases agency memberships to the National Contract Management
Association (NCMA).At this time,
all have been claimed.We will
advise you if more NCMA agency memberships become
available.

Use of electronic methods to communicate with the
Federal government is on the rise, according to a May 2004 report from the Pew
Internet & American Life Project.Although the telephone is still the number one way to contact the
government, using a government website is now the second most frequently used
approach.The most recent Pew study
shows that approximately 77 percent of Internet users—an estimated 97 million
Americans—have gone online to search for information from government agencies or
to communicate with them.

An earlier Pew Internet survey, performed in 2002, showed
that 20 percent of government website users were frustrated in their attempts to
find information, and frequent surfers did no better than less active
surfers.Since then, many
agencies—including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Social
Security Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service—have been actively
studying ways to improve the “usability” of their sites so that even more people
may communicate effectively with them via the Internet.

So what is usability?Usability is the measure of the quality
of a user’s experience when interacting with a product or system—whether a
website, a software application, mobile technology, or any user-operated device.
Because many Federal web-based
communication systems have similar audiences, goals, and issues, it makes sense
that GSA has formed the Usability Solutions Group to provide a governmentwide
forum for discussing, developing, and sharing web-based communication issues and
best practices.

Led by Janice Nall, who developed www.usability.gov while serving as the Chief of
the Communication Technologies Branch at the National Institutes of
Health/National Cancer Institute, GSA’s Usability Solutions Group recently
launched the Usability University (UU).UU is a comprehensive usability training program that offers Federal
staff and contractors a variety of user experience training opportunities, such
as free seminars and in-depth courses, at nominal rates.

Usability University, which is jointly sponsored by
GSA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, offers a range of
seminars and courses for nominal fees.The seminar “Older Users and the
Web” will be offered July 19-20 from 9:30-3:30 at AARP, 601 E Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.To register for
this course, and for further information about usability or other specific
programs, go to www.usability.gov/usabilityuniversity/training.html or contact Hada Flowers at (202) 208-7282 or
hada.flowers@gsa.gov.

On April 19 and 20, 2004, David Drabkin, Deputy Chief
Acquisition Officer, hosted the second bi-lateral meeting between GSA and the
Public Procurement Service, Republic of Korea in Williamsburg, VA. This meeting
was a continuation of the cooperative exchange between GSA and the South Korean
Public Procurement Service.Previously, employees of the South Korean Public Procurement Service
worked at GSA and Mr. Drabkin traveled to the Republic of Korea for the first
bi-lateral meeting in December 2003.

The purpose of this meeting was to exchange information
about government procurement. Notably, officials from the Korean procurement
delegation presented information on its United Nations award-winning
e-procurement system; and GSA presented information on its Multiple Award
Schedules program and workforce competency assessment tool. GSA associates
Matthew Urnezis, Teresa Sorrenti, Neal Fox, Gloria Sochon, and Al Matera were
guest speakers at this meeting. Among those present from the South Korean Public
Procurement Service were Hyung-Jong Min, Director General, Planning and
Management Office, Jae-Bo Ryu, Director, Procurement Policy Division and
Myeong-Ki Baek, Director, Information Planning Division.Future bi-lateral meetings are being
scheduled with the Republic of Korea to focus on education and training and GATT
Compliance. The next meeting is scheduled for August in Seoul, South Korea. GSA
is also investigating opportunities for other bi-lateral cooperative exchanges
with our NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico.For more information, contact Barbara
Plevelich at (202) 219-3454 or Barbara.Plevelich@gsa.gov.

The PBS Procurement Division, PXRP, is presently
transitioning to Organizational Resources as the Vendor Acquisition
Division—PGCA.Currently the
Division Director, Matt Urnezis, and three analysts have been assigned to the
division.Other placements are
expected to follow soon.For more
information, contact Barbara Bartee at Barbara.bartee@gsa.gov or (202)
501-1824.

There is no questioning the economic benefit of a
properly designed and implemented Quality Control (QC) system; however, many
people who interact with and use QC terminology don’t understand it. The intent
of this article is to clear up some common misconceptions about QC and explain
the underlying fundamentals of some of the current in-fashion terminology.

This is relevant to the acquisition community for the
following reasons:

1.With the recent publicity regarding some of the acquisition practices
alleged to have occurred at GSA, it would be a good idea to have more proactive
(instead of reactive) procedures in place.A high quality, accurate and valid QC system is a great
start.

2.When making vendor selection decisions, acquisition staff must consider
quality as one of the deciding factors. By understanding the fundamentals behind
the quality “buzzwords,” acquisition team members can better compare competing
proposals, as well as determine that proposed solutions meet applicable
requirements.

Since the concept of the “marketplace” first began,
customers have always demanded quality goods. “Quality” is not a modern
concept.For the purposes of this
article, quality in “modern” times will be defined as post-Fredrick Taylor’s
“Scientific Management,” a body of theories developed in the early 1900s.One of the most important figures in the
history of QC is Dr. Walter Shewhart, who is considered by many to be the
“grandfather of Quality Management.” When he was a Bell Lab engineer, Dr.
Shewhart was credited with developing the process of Statistical Process Control
(SPC).According to NASA, SPC is a
“method of monitoring, controlling and, ideally, improving a process through
statistical analysis” (www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ppm/ppm31.htm).

No discussion of QC would be complete without
discussing the ideas of Dr. Edwards Demings.As a physicist and statistician Demings
built upon Shewhart’s work to create sampling techniques that were used for the
first time for the 1940 U.S. Census which proved to be very effective.For example, after routine clerical
operations were brought under statistical process control, some processes
increased in productivity six-fold. This success led to Demings’
teaching Statistical Quality Control (SQC) techniques in 1942 to engineers and
others engaged in the World War II effort.

After WWII, most of American industry abandoned the
QC efforts developed by Demings and Shewhart because demand for American goods
was so great and these methods were viewed as a function of engineering, not
management.Dr. Demings was sent to
Japan and while there was asked by the Japanese Union of Scientists and
Engineers to teach Shewhart’s SPC to aid in their country’s industrial
rebuilding effort.He agreed to do
so, butunlike his previous lectures in the United States, he aimed his
message this time to the chief executive level.His message was that improving quality
would reduce expenses while increasing productivity and market share.Deming’s message was well received and
use of his techniques helped make Japan an industrial power.

While Dr. Demings was prominent in Japan, for all intents
and purposes he remained anonymous in the United States.This changed in the 1980s as America
became more concerned with increasing industrial competition from Japan.Dr. Deming’s influence spread and he was
featured in an NBC documentary titled “If Japan Can, Why Can’t We?”Today there are many new buzzwords and
concepts in QC but the principles for these theories were developed by Dr.
Demings and his predecessors.Some
of the new concepts are:

QC Terminology:Six Sigma, ISO 9000, and Maturity Models

Six-Sigma, created at Motorola and made famous by its use at GE,
is at its heart nothing more than using statistics as a control. Six-Sigma can
most easily be thought of as the use of six standard deviations for “statistical
controls.” In statistics a standard deviation(SD) measures how far an
occurrence of a random process is from the average or mean.In a “normal” distribution curve,
three sigma (+/-3 SD)covers approximately 97.73% of the
population.If three sigma is
acceptable quality, then there will be less than 3 errors per 1000 actions.

In the 1980’s Motorola engineers decided that the
traditional quality levels — measuring defects in thousands of opportunities —
didn’t provide enough “granularity” since 97.73% error-free still allowed for
2700 errors per million actions, which could have great financial
ramifications.While credit for
coining the term “Six-Sigma” should go to Motorola engineer Bill Smith,
“Six-Sigma” is just +/- 6 SD or 99.99985% (control) which only allows 1.5
defects per 1 million actions. To account for any variation in measuring, slack
is figured into the number, often a 1.5 Sigma shift which yields 99.99966% or
3.4 defects per million (making 6 Sigma the process 4.5 SD)
(www.isixsigma.com/).

ISO 9000.The
International Organization for Standardization [ISO] is the world’s largest
developer of standards. ISO is made up of a network of standards institutes
(i.e. ASME, IEEE, etc.) from approximately 148 countries.The majority of ISO standards are
technical in nature.ISO
exists because of the importance of interoperability and agreement on terms in
industry.Billions of dollars of
commerce can hinge on standards adopted by industry (either de facto or
ISO).“Standards-wars” often
erupt between different companies with varying technical solutions as they each
try to make their way the standard way of doing things.Because of this, ISO standards are often
compromises instead of the best solution. This point is extremely relevant in
the quality arena, because in 1987 ISO decided to create a “generic management
system standard” which became what we know as the ISO 9000 family.ISO 9000 is, therefore, not the industry
“best practice” rather it is the lowest common denominator all parties involved
would agree to.

“The concept of
certification and standards, however, breaks down when global competitiveness is
at stake.Most recently, ISO 9000
certification has become a requirement for exports to Europe, and Japan has been
forced to obtain ISO certification, not because it is a quality issue, but
because it is a way of increasing market share. The Japanese companies provide
some of the highest-quality products, typically using company product standards
(best commercial practices) rather than external standards like QML or any U.S.
military standards”(www.wtec.org/loyola/ep/c6s1.htm).

This fact can
easily be illustrated by looking at Toyota and Firestone. Toyota, who abandoned
the ISO 9000 standard, is at the pinnacle of quality control, while the
Firestone plant which was responsible for the greatly publicized Ford-Firestone
tire incident, was an ISO 9000 certified plant. There is an old joke among QC
engineers/experts regarding the ISO 9000 standards.It involves a company using cement
instead of foam to manufacture its life preservers, yet it is still able to
become ISO 9000 certified as it follows all of its documentation to the
letter.Though a little extreme, it
points out a vital flaw in many QC initiatives.

Maturity Models.The latest craze on the QC scene is Maturity
Models.Currently over 30 Maturity Models are being promoted. The first
Maturity Model was created by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). SEI,
affiliated with Carnegie Mellon University, is a federally funded research and
development center sponsored by DoD.SEI’s purpose is to promote software engineering, a term first used in
the late 60’s to bring the rigor found in traditional engineering disciplines to
computer science. One could argue that if our buildings and automobiles failed
as often as our software, we would be living with the Flintstones in
Bedrock.

SEI and its Maturity Models were highly influenced by
Philip Crosby.“Dr. Deming and Dr. Joseph Juran were the great brains of
the quality revolution.Where Phil
Crosby excelled was in finding a terminology for quality that mere mortals could
understand” (www.isixsigma.com).Crosby’s easy to understand terminology
may help explain the craze surrounding Maturity Models. SEI originally created
the Maturity Model terminology for software but it is being used everywhere, for
everything.

The following graph and definitions are from an SEI
model for software projects found at www.sei.cmu.edu.

Maturity Models are often broken down into five
levels:

1) Initial. The software process is characterized as ad hoc, and
occasionally even chaotic. Few processes are defined, and success depends on
individual effort and heroics.

2) Repeatable.Basic
project management processes are established to track cost, schedule, and
functionality. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat earlier
successes on projects with similar applications.

3) Defined. The software process for both management and
engineering activities is documented, standardized, and integrated into a
standard software process for the organization.All projects use an approved, tailored
version of the organization’s standard software process for developing and
maintaining software.

4) Managed.Detailed measures of the software process and product quality are
collected.Both the software
process and products are quantitatively understood and controlled.

5) Optimizing. Continuous process improvement is enabled by
quantitative feedback from the process and from piloting innovative ideas and
technologies.

SEI stresses how their model’s framework could be
used in other areas besides software development. SEI is developing an
Acquisition module for theirwell-known Capability Maturity Model® Integration(CMMI® ). This module, which helps define “effective and
efficient practices for government acquisition organizations,” should be of
great interest to the government acquisition community.The module can be found at www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/04.reports/04tr001.html.

By no means is the CMMI® Acquisition Module a direct “How To” guide, as every
group and organization is different. Instead, it is best thought of as a
well-designed checklist even if your organization, section or group is not
actively seeking a formal appraisal (ranking against the Maturity Model). I
highly recommend benchmarking it, to ensure that you have in place, and in
practice, relevant repeatable processes and procedures. If not, create them or
change what you have, always remembering common sense often does not mean
common practice.

From a basic standpoint, Maturity Model levels
(CMMI® Acquisition Module included) can be best thought of
yielding increased quality performance with fewer risks.

Certification,
Registration and Accreditation Many
people are surprised to find out that certification, registration and
accreditation in some of the different commercially available “quality
standards” are not the same thing nor does an organization have to be any of the
above to put these quality principles into practice.According to ISO definitions found at
www.iso.org:

Certification: refers to the issuing of written
assurance (the certificate) by an independent, external body that has audited an
organization’s management system and verified that it conforms to the
requirements specified in the standard.

Registration: means that the auditing body then
records the certification in its client register.

Accreditation: refers to the formal recognition by
a specialized body - an accreditation body - that a certification body is
competent to carry out ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certification in specified business
sectors. In simple terms, accreditation is like certification of the
certification body.

Certificates issued by accredited
certification bodies - and known as “accredited certificates” – may be perceived
on the market as having increased credibility, whether they do or not. It is
important to remember that great quality control systems can be in place without
any of the three. Toyota is a prime example of this. On the other hand, just
because a company is certified or accredited, don’t assume that their QC
processes are perfect.Validation
of their QC can be done with market research.

Understanding the history and fundamental concepts
behind QC systems should make it easier to reap the benefits of Quality Control
systems.Knowing these concepts
will help us to understand when, how and what metrics should be put in place to
yield much greater results than focusing on the latest trends and
buzzwords.Achieving a cutting edge
Quality Control system in a large or small organization may also require
supplementing a basic understanding of statistics with more sophisticated
concepts like prospect theory and theory of constraints.For more information on QC standards and
terminology check out www.isixsigma.com, www.asq.org , www.iso.org,
and www.sei.cmu.edu.

The author, Harry Blake, is a Project Managerat SmartBuy.He welcomes any comments on this article
and can be reached at harry.blake@gsa.gov.

The
Great Lakes Region has taken GSA’s Affirmative Procurement Program seriously,
making a concerted effort to develop procedures, contract specifications,
checklists, reporting forms, and training programs for all regional associates,
especially those targeting project managers, property managers and contracting
officers.In 2003, GSA’s Office of
Procurement pronounced the Great Lakes Region’s efforts “the most sophisticated”
of GSA’s regions, and the Director of the Office of Solid Waste at EPA
headquarters requested copies of their regional forms and procedures in an
attempt to improve implementation of green purchasing programs across the
Federal government.

One
area where the Region has chosen to focus on green purchasing is housekeeping.
With about 60 janitorial contracts and 47 different contractors cleaning
approximately 16,179,783 square feet, regional associates thought they could
make a significant impact on the environment and the well being of their tenants
by “greening” their janitorial contracts.

In
2001, the Regional Environmental Coordinator collaborated with the regional
Contracts Services Branch team leader for the regional janitorial program to
revise master contract specs.They
recommended that contractors use low-VOC (volatile organic compound) cleaning
products and report annually on their progress.A reporting form was developed for
contractors that asked questions such as, “Has your company implemented an
environmentally preferable purchasing program?” and “Did you require the use of
low-VOC cleaning products in any work subcontracted out by your company?” and
“Over the past year, which of the following low-VOC cleaning products did you
purchase?”This list of low-VOC
products includes carpet and upholstery cleaners, spot removers, fabric
protectant, floor wax strippers, general purpose cleaners, general purpose
degreasers, glass cleaners, metal polishes and cleaners, and furniture waxes and
polishes.California state limits
are given as guidelines for VOC content since they are the most stringent.

These
two regional associates had previously modified the master cleaning specs to
include the EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) requirements for
purchasing such items as restroom paper products and plastic trash bags with the
prescribed amount of recycled content.Now they wanted to take the green cleaning program a step further,
convinced by research which shows that using environmentally preferable products
improves air quality and has less of an impact on the health of janitorial
workers and building tenants than using traditional products.

These
associates realized that the impact of contract requirements could be tremendous
due to GSA’s significant market influence through the practices of its
contractors, the size of GSA operations, and since most of GSA’s janitorial
contractors also clean privately owned buildings.In addition to recommending low-VOC
products, an optional requirement for HEPA or micro-filter vacuums was
added.After modifying the specs,
the program team leader trained the contracting officers and property managers
who work with the janitorial service companies as the contracting officer’s
representatives on site.

Although the Great Lakes Region’s green cleaning program
was in place on paper by 2002, property managers encountered resistance from
contractors who did not want to bother experimenting with new products or
changing suppliers.Additionally,
many of the property managers were uncomfortable in the role of salesmen trying
to convince their janitors to buy into something that they were not convinced of
themselves.

In the
summer of 2002, the Regional Environmental Coordinator heard of a NISH workshop
on green cleaning coming to Chicago, targeting janitorial contractors.She attended it, free of charge, and was
so impressed that she asked the NISH national trainer if he would put on a
similar workshop for GSA regional associates.He was thrilled to do so, and conducted
the training in January 2003 for 60 regional associates from four of the
region’s six states as well as a couple of the region’s cleaning contractors, at
no cost to GSA.Teaching with the
NISH trainer was one of the country’s foremost experts on green cleaning, Steve
Ashkin of the Ashkin Group. As former owners of janitorial businesses with years
of experience in the industry, both instructors really clicked with their
audience. The GSA team leader for janitorial contracts, Regional Recycling
Coordinator, and Regional Environmental Coordinator backed them up with
information about all of the Federal mandates and agency policies that support
the green cleaning movement.

After
this training, Steve Ashkin reviewed the regional master janitorial specs and
helped the Great Lakes Region refine them, suggesting language such as, “Use
products that meet the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label Program,” and
specifying floor finishes “free of heavy metals, including zinc.”He was pleased to see the annual report
on low-VOC product use that the region required of our contractors.The Contracts Services Branch put the
green spec on its website for easy access by all regional
associates.

Inspired by the NISH training, several of the Great
Lakes Region’s property managers have convinced their janitorial contractors to
try environmentally preferable and biobased content cleaning products in the
region’s Federal buildings and courthouses, as shown in the following
examples:

·Chicago’s Customhouse: pilot test in
a restroom, where different types of cleaning products are used on three
adjacent stalls, three basins, and three mirrors. Traditional products are used
on one stall, basin and mirror, while two different manufacturers’ green
products are used on the other two sets of fixtures. Tenants, alerted to the
test by a posted sign, have told the property manager that they like the idea of
switching to healthier products.

·Detroit, Michigan, McNamara Federal
Building: contractor has expanded use of green products, using Green Seal
certified items.Property managers
have educated building tenants about them at their regular meetings and are
planning an informational kiosk.

The above are just a few examples of
the Great Lakes Region’s efforts.Implementing these programs has proven to be difficult. One property
manager said, “It’s a struggle getting it implemented.We have good discussions, but when the
time comes to implement, the understanding is different. Only half the materials
are there, or half the research is done.”

Resistance to change is nothing new,
but the Great Lakes Region is fighting resistance with persistence!Training is ongoing: In 2003, the
Regional Environmental Coordinator trained approximately 180 regional associates
in Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Grand Rapids, Michigan in GSA’s Affirmative
Procurement Program.The Contracts
Services Branch team leader for janitorial contracts works continuously to
educate the region’s property managers on green purchasing.The
region has conducted continuous, comprehensive training that has inspired some
of their property managers to sell their janitorial contractors on the idea of
buying greener products—a practice which is likely to spread to their private
sector contracts.

Felipe Mendoza, Associate Administrator, Office of Small
Business Utilization, is the Presidential appointee representing GSA on the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, the
Federal agency that administers the Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Program.As one of the JWOD Program’s largest
customers through products sold through FSS, and services procured by PBS, GSA’s
representation on the Committee is a strong asset to both the JWOD Program and
its Federal customers.

The Committee is comprised of fifteen Presidential
appointees including representatives from eleven Federal agencies and four
private citizens representing the concerns of people who are blind or have other
severe disabilities.In addition to
GSA, Federal agencies represented on the Committee include the Departments of
the Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Justice, Labor,
Navy and Veterans Affairs.The
Committee’s responsibilities include determining the suitability of products and
services to add to the JWOD Program’s Procurement List and setting the Fair
Market Price for those products and services.

Mr. Mendoza’s appointment in July of 2003 allowed him
to be a part of the Committee’s Strategic Planning process for the JWOD Program
for Fiscal Years 2004-2007.The
JWOD Program’s Strategic Plan centers on five goals relating to people with
severe disabilities, Federal customers, process and procedures, communication
and information sharing and market development.In regards to Federal customers, the
JWOD Program’s goals include increased customer satisfaction and the creation of
collaborative plans to help better meet Federal customer’s unique business
needs.

The JWOD Program is also supported at GSA through the
assistance of the JWOD Program Liaison, Lucy Jenkins, a Program Analyst in the
Office of Small Business Utilization. As GSA’s JWOD Liaison, Ms. Jenkins
provides GSA procurement and acquisition personnel with the latest guidance and
information on the JWOD Program and its ability to meet GSA requirements.Ms. Jenkins can be reached at (202)
501-1445 or via email at lucy.jenkins@gsa.gov.

“Check It Out!” highlights upcoming conferences and
events of interest to the GSA acquisition community.If you’d like to have your conference or
event listed in this column, please send an email to the Editor,
judy.steele@gsa.gov with the pertinent information and a point of
contact.

Last newsletter I wrote about three words I try to
live by:Integrity, Loyalty and
Fun.I addressed the need for
integrity in everything we do.It’s
importance in what we do daily cannot be over emphasized.We’ve recently seen examples where some
of our colleagues gave away their integrity, and, unfortunately, we may see more
in upcoming months.

I’d now like to focus on the need for loyalty in everything
we do.Loyalty is subordinate to
integrity.Anyone who asks you to
sacrifice your integrity out of loyalty to him/her or the team does not
understand the true meaning of loyalty.If you give away your integrity you cannot be loyal to yourself or to
your team.Loyalty does not require
blind support to either your supervisor or team.Loyalty does demand that you provide the
best advice and work you can.Loyalty also demands that if you are being pushed to do something illegal
or unethical that you not do it and bring it to the attention of the appropriate
authorities.Loyalty also demands
that just because you disagree with a course of action, and after you have given
your supervisor or team the benefit of your advice and insights, you honor the
decision that is made and do everything within your power and skills to make it
happen elegantly.

The members of our acquisition workforce are imbued with
special trust and authorities.No
one else can obligate the government to spend taxpayer dollars or make a
decision about the responsibility of a company. Combining your personal
integrity with your loyalty to yourself, the team, and GSA demonstrates that
special trust and the proper use of the authorities you have been
delegated.In the end, the
government cannot operate and the taxpayers will be ill served without your
personal commitment to having integrity in everything you do and being loyal to
yourself, your team and GSA.

This newsletter is issued by the new Office of the
Chief Acquisition Officer. The creation of this office and its implementation
within GSA marks a historic move forward in recognizing that members of the
acquisition workforce are more than mere clerks.We serve an important function in
facilitating the fulfillment of the requirements of our customers in consonance
with the rules, using good business judgment.

We are
ready to make this move and we look forward to your support in the
process.

We
thank our guest authors for their contributions to this newsletter.Guest authors express their own views,
which are provided for the information of our newsletter
readers.

Office of the Chief Acquisition
Officer

1800 F Street,
NW

Washington, DC20405

Editor

Judy Steele

Graphics Editor

Michael McClellan

We
welcome any comments, suggestions, and articles.We also welcome any individually
authored articles on acquisition issues that would be of interest to the GSA
acquisition audience.Please
contact the Editor, Judy Steele, at judy.steele@gsa.gov or (202) 501-4994 with comments or suggestions.Questions for the “FAR-cited” column can
also be submitted to the Editor.